This week's acquittal of Scott Owens isn't likely to lead to any immediate changes in law or DWI prosecutions, lawyers and drunken-driving experts said. 

 

In fact, although the outcome surprised many in the community, the system worked, said Ousama Rasheed, president-elect of the New Mexico Criminal Defense Lawyers Association. 

 

Jurors on Tuesday found Owens not guilty of vehicular homicide in the deaths of four teenagers in June 2009 or causing great bodily harm to a 16-year-old survivor — even though he was drunk at the time their cars collided southeast of Santa Fe. 

 

New Mexico's vehicular-homicide law, like that of many other states, doesn't allow a driver to be convicted just because he was drunk. The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was a significant cause of the deaths. 

 

That doesn't mean the sole cause. 

 

According to instructions to the jury in this case, jurors can believe that a third party also contributed to the events leading to death and still find the defendant guilty. But if the jury determines the third party is a significant cause of the accident, they cannot find the defendant guilty. 

 

"I think the law is pretty well settled and there needs to be a causal relationship between a person's actions and the result," Rasheed said. 

 

The way to look at it, according to George Stein, an Atlanta lawyer who is a founding member of the National College for DUI Defense, is "who was the cause, not who was impaired." 

 

For example, a person driving down the road with a blood alcohol level two or three times the legal limit is not significantly responsible for a fatal crash if a sober driver crosses the center line and plows into his car. 

 

"If a person impaired did not make any (driving mistakes) and is not at fault, you can't find him guilty of vehicular homicide; but you can find him guilty of DWI," Stein pointed out. 

 

Defense attorney Dan Cron presented evidence that clearly raised doubt among the jurors about Owens' level of culpability — and thus guilt — in the crash on Old Las Vegas Highway nearly two years ago. 

 

While the prosecution claimed that Owens was driving in the wrong lane and tried to move back into his own lane just before the crash, Cron suggested something different. 

 

He raised the possibility that another teenage driver might have bumped the Subaru driven by Avree Koffman into Owens' Jeep. 

 

And he presented testimony from a mechanic, originally hired by the state to examine the vehicles, who said that the steering mechanism on the Jeep was going straight at the time of the impact. 

 

"If there is a third party that significantly contributes to the accident, then juries psychologically tend to look over there in that direction and be more forgiving of the defendant," Stein said. 

 

Several sources questioned the prosecution's decision not to offer jurors the opportunity to convict Owens of drunken driving. 

 

That would have seemed liked a slam dunk, considering both sides stipulated his blood alcohol content was 0.16, twice the legal limit. 

 

The decision not to include the DWI offense might have been a "strategic error," Stein suggested. He added that, "Some prosecutors, in their zeal to win a case, do not like to give jurors two choices ... (because) they tend to split the loaf. They won't find the defendant guilty of vehicular homicide if they think there was a third-party contribution, but they will find the defendant guilty of DWI." 

 

"When there's only one choice, you're rolling the dice," he said. "In this case, the prosecution lost." 

 

A DWI conviction, however, might have placated some of the people upset by the verdict, Rasheed said. "If he had been found guilty of something, maybe people wouldn't be so outraged." 

 

Although Owens spent the past two years in jail — and probably wouldn't have served further time if convicted of DWI in this case — a drunken-driving conviction would have resulted in other penalties, including a requirement that he use an ignition interlock for at least one year, DWI classes, community service and possibly alcohol treatment. 

 

Will Waggoner, a defense attorney from Santa Fe who has children of his own and said he "felt horrible" for the families involved, pointed out that "we need to focus on what really happened and not just assume because (Owens) was drinking and driving, it was all his fault. We need to be cognizant of that." 

 

While DWI tragedies often cause lawmakers to attempt to right what they perceive to be wrongs in the law, Rasheed concluded, "There's nothing wrong that happened. There wasn't a mistake by anybody involved. ... I understand why many may be upset, but the system worked. How upset people are doesn't drive whether somebody is guilty of a crime or not."

In the Media